According to Carter and as forewarned by Eisenhower, the Zionists both neocons and neoliberals in Washington now owe their existence to generate Wars and Conflicts. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Jihadists have become the perfect counter-party for the Warring cauldron.

Want to win? Stop playing the game. This is not a religious issue its a geo-politcal issue. Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation and we have no problems with them. Why? Because we don't give them a reason to hate us.

Assassinations, Targeted killings, drone bombings, perceived market manipulations, political pressure all drive people towards dislike and eventually hate of America. This enables easy recruitment and replenishment of terrorist. As long as we keep meddling like we are in the Middle East we will always have terrorist.

Want to solve this? Become independent upon their natural resources, limit our strategic interest in the area. Stop killing them, stop manipulating them and they will have no reason to attack us. Will it happen over night no because so much hate as been generated and it will take time to subside even after we stop.

The US and the Western sidekicks cannot have the cake and eat it by propping up the Wahhabi regimes that are funding, arming and feeding the Jihadists. The operand modus of the Hegemon is to destablise the Ummahs to control the oil and hence, letting in the Wahhabi Salafists to take over eg. Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Libya, Syria, Timbuktu, Yemen, Iraq etc.

You're talking as if the Ummah is the solution to all Islamist problems. It isn't. You're wrong there.
Secondly, if the "US and the Western sidekicks" do not side with the Wahhabi regimes (I assume you're referring to the Gulf regimes among others?) the New Powers, viz China and Russia would rush in to fill the gap. Seeing that both China and Russia are cult regimes, I'd be better pleased with the status quo. The Gulf kingdoms sit on the world's largest oil reserves. They will inevitably be "too big to abandon", never mind the fact that both China and Russia face their own struggle against Islamists - China against the Uighur Muslims and others and Russia in Chechnya and other parts of the Caucasus.

Terrorism around the world will drop to zilch if the funds of the Gulf Wahhabis are frozen. But then again, these will not happen as the Zionist hyper-militarists in Washington are making humongous profits by selling arms around the world particularly to the Wahhabists, terrorists or not by inventing wars and conflicts.

According to Henery Kissinger "I know the development is the process of physical changes" but after lot of experiences and studies about the mataphysical rebellion I reached a conclusion that real-development is the changes of ideology and thought which brings the social, political and economical transform in the society.

If, we want to stop the metaphysical rebellion in this region that we need to bring the urgent changes in the soiety in form of education, health and development of economics activities.

Otherwise, there is no way to stop them to penetrate in the society as ruler.

Whilst you are trying to stop these Jihadists, they are killing millions in places like Pakistan and Sudan.
Your way of working is upto them - In Europe they have the possibilities extended to them - but unlike other immigrants to Europe, they tend to occupy the lowest rung of society.
Only a change of religion, or total annihilation will solve the problem.

Thanks for yours comments on my views about Jihadist but I try to correct you that Jihadist are not the force of evils that they kills and slaughter millions of people.
They are the people like us but they are fighting with clear ideology while we are those who have suspicious ideology as we call it secularism.
I believe, you must know about the world war-II and in this war millions of people died by the hands of secular and moderate societies in Europe and Asia.
The history of man can never omit this inhuman disaster that they had proud on their civilization and literacy.
Who says Jihadists are illiterate and uncivilized that they
are the people whom majority belongs from secular institutions. They know how to operate and function modern equipment and how to use arm ammunition against their enemies.
Actually, the real matter is that the state of Pakistan, Sudan and other Muslim countries have failed to deliver the justice in the society regarding economics welfare and political understanding according to will of their people.
This all bad deeds are functioned under the auspicious of western power that they wanted to make them worst modern salve and capture natural resources in the interest of their economy through dealing few powerful classes and pave them right to rule in form of landlord, military and train bureaucracy to safe western interest only.
If we look to past that we find core source to train and make Jihadist as the power to bring revolution in the region where they exist through Jihad against Soviet empire –these were powerful western secular and capitalist countries.
So, we can not blame only the Jihadist that current disastrous violence are spreading simultaneously in Pakistan, Sudan and other Muslim countries.

Jihadists are a kind of psycho-religio-terrorist gang-movement and have placed themselves beyond the norms of society by their murderous and insane grab for social and political power without regard for anyone else's life or rights.

Much like Nazis, Stalinists, Khmer Rouge and Maoists. Their active elimination is good for everyone. Really. Anyone who wants help doing so should be assisted. Otherwise their "movement" will continue to grow and will be outside your door one night, like the Stazi, KGB, or Red Guard. You see, there are lots of real-life examples to draw from.

I am looking on the map in the article and it is astonishing. Media always told as that there are Algerians, there are Lybians, there are Malians happy in their borders and their states. Now we find that everything told us in the past is nonsense. There are Tuareg. Not Lybians, not Algerians, not Malians. Tuareg. And they want their state despite nobody in the UN, nobody in the Humans Right council,nobody in the Arab league never stated the Tuareg's will. So probably UN statements and the Humans Right council statements and the Arab league statements were highly politically biased and not reflected the reality and the people's will?
May be guilty in the current situation are UN and the West that sanctified the colonial borders and prevented state from Tuaregs?

Mali is one of those huge African nations that has always been a country by name only and not by reality. The Turags, who fancy themselves as Arabs, have never accepted the rule of southern 'Abeed'(slaves)all the way from distant Bamako. The solution is to allow the Turags to secede and create their own Arab country, something that always existed de fact if not de jure.

Azawad will then be responsible for controlling its madmen and will have an incentive to do so. If (Black) African States attack the North, the Tuaregs will see it as 'abeed' attack on their people and will probably all join the Ansar because Ansar will be seen as protectors of the Tuaregs.

The West should think really carefully about this one before getting into yet another mire

One man's vast uncontrollable desert is another man's home. Only Tuaregs can control their territory. The reason MNLA turned to Ansar Dine is the lack of money. The reason Ansar Dine turned to Al Kaida is the lack of money. The reason Azawad became so hostile to Westerners is the total lack of support or understanding in the West for the Tamashek people. Tuareg teritory was divided by straight borders drawn by colonial powers with no concern whatsoever for the people living there, and today the West refuses to considers re-negotiating these completely unnatural and unjustified borders because otherwise it may have to re-negotiate other borders that it sees as just as unimportant. If Kosovo has the right to be independent, if South Sudan can be independent, if Scotland can hold a referendum to be independent, why can't the Tamashek be independent? Is it because they live in such a God-forsaken place with no minerals? These people have been fighting for Independence for the last fifty years. They are facing a drought that lasts since 1973. They need help, and they deserve it, no less than any other minority. They do not deserve their land to be turned into another Avganistan. Tuaregs are a nation of traders that have been exposed to many various influences trough many centuries. An African equivalent of the Dutch. They are practically minded and they are known to take their religion very lightly. They do not deserve that Al Kaida and the West fight over their back. To secure a peace in Azawad, the West should support the secular MNLA. It should recognize Azawad as an independent state and offer help in various forms, from cash to intelligence. It should act as a friend of Tuareg people, and then the Tuareg territory will be safe for Westerners instead of harboring Western enemies.

Hi,
So what criteria should the "west" use in determining which minority to unilaterally grant independence to? Should the recognized government be allowed a say? The UN? Saudi Arabian princes? Regional powers? Terrorist organizations?

Didn't the UN sanction the formation of Israel? How did that work-out????

I have sympathy for oppressed minorities but I am opposed to every little tribe becoming an independent country (with its hand-out) simply because someone says they want political power. There has to be other reasons but I am not sure I can make a list of them. Perhaps you can?

Tuaregs are not a little tribe. They control half of Sahara, and it would be in the interest of world peace to treat them with the due respect otherwise they turn to Al Kaida. This is the simple criterion by which they should be granted Independence, and I don't have a general criterion or an answer to your many questions. And yes, you're right - it's not only the "west" any more, now it's also China, Russia etc. that decide in such cases. Although that ever consider military action in far away countries, so it's still appropriate to say "the west" when one talks about the voluntary world policemen. I certainly agree - U.S. troops should stay at home, this time and every time.

Before considering the idea of "stopping the jihadists", consider the idea that maybe, in fact, there is a G-d. What, then, would you want a nation of believers to do if they were being threatened by secular pressures which would indeed tend towards annihilation of their [part of] Truth?

Does the U.N. know the answer to such questions so well that they're willing to go to war over it? Is it not just an inconvenience this notion of G-d and not a matter of Truth or even principles?

janssena; with rational people, religious or secular, liberal or conservative, one can reason, agree / disagree, compromise, or agree to disagree. These Jihadis have one core paradigm; If you do not agree with their world view, then you are an enemy who must be killed. It does not matter whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist. We do not have the luxury of tolerating these barbarians.

It is ridiculous that you call them barbarians without considering American history. There you can find the record of the (near) genocide of the indigenous people (Native Americans). If you support the continuance of the US economy as it stands, you are in tacit support of the very acts that you denounce. They suffer to this day, so one cannot simply write it off as "history".

One must remember (also) that every "rational" system rests on certain prior premises. The premise of the global economic system pushed by the UN (and such) revolves around various godless quantifications of godless agents, if these agents are not godless, then the whole global-economic system which the UN pushes for falls, doesn't it?

How about this: if the jihadists can provide objective evidence, not only that a deity exists, but that said deity actually wants them to do what they're doing, we'll take your objections into account.

Murdering women and children to simply gain political power and impose a tyrany automatically disqualifies the jihadists. I know the arguments you refer to, and they are bogus and false. There is no truth in the jihadists' message. None what-so-ever. Nada. Zero. Null. Nein.

Have you "considered" that the jihadists are a collection of heartless, calculating, and evil power-mongers who will kill your children and claim that their deity told them to do so for a greater good? I can not post here what I think of these "people" and their idea of "truth" but I can assure you that 20 years in the navy would help decode the words.

The argument that "two wrongs make a right" is rather odd and misses the point. Murdering children today with bombs and guns to gain political power and defending such actions because of injustices in the past is not rational and is hardly convincing. Wrong is wrong. jihadists gain power by murdering civilians without any justification beyond the little voice in their heads . . . I hope anyone who reads this understands what I am saying.

Very clever, jans.
The time in which the "whites" engaged in war with the "natives" was one of "might is right". The issue of human rights for all was a non-existent idea then. Unlike now, when the human rights issue is hammered into us 24x7.
Also, the concept of a formal recognition of land ownership didn't exist then. The "native" tribes fought among themselves for control of land, as they did with the "whites" when they came, only the "whites" had better weapons. The issue of rights for the "natives", for them to have their own land where they can reign almost supreme, also came from the "whites" themselves, which you overlook.

Your ignorance, whether feigned or real, is criminal.
Ever heard of the Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a? They are a Sufi paramilitary group who are fighting on the side of the Western-backed Transitional Federal Govt of Somalia AGAINST your so-called pious Al-Qaeda and Al Shabaab, to preserve their own Sufi tradition in Somalia (by the way, Sufis are generally known to be respectful of the state and its writ instead of going Allahu Akbar at the tiniest provocation; tolerant of other beliefs; all the while believing in God or Allah).
Ever heard of the Raskamboni movement? They were part of the Islamist faction in the Somalian Civil War, but now they are fighting on the side of the TFG against the Islamist terrorists, whom you are so anxious to see accepted with open arms by the civilized world.
Your so-called "reply" is nothing but a smokescreen for not a shred of meaningful substance other than trying to admit a band of barbarians into the human race by fraudulent means.
You know what's frightening? That an ignorant Fascist like you, possibly with malicious intentions, gets to air these so-called "opinions" in such fora as the present one.

If you are an American, did you not do the same to the Native Peoples that were there? You should really examine yourself before criticizing others. Because they still apparently are kept on reservations there and deprived of liberty.

Your assessment of the role of the change in government in the fall of the North to the MNLA and its subsequent take-over by Salafists is inaccurate on two counts. First, if the change was a coup, it was the strangest coup I've ever witnessed, and having spent considerable time in Latin America in the past, I've seen many coups including the one in Chile, all of them pre-planned, some of them having had outside support. What took place was a mutiny against a corrupt president who had used a facade of democracy as a cover for the looting of the State. The muting turned into a revolution against generalized corruption and the impunity of the political class from prosecution in the rare cases when its members were shown to be stealing State and donor funds. A April survey conducted by Sidiki Guindo showed that nearly 64% of the population were satisfied with the change in government even though elections were scheduled. 51% held the regime itself responsible for its own demise.
Second, this corruption as it affected the Army made the loss the North inevitable, an outcome only slightly hastened by the revolution. 43 top officers were reported to be involved in the drugs trade and as part of a more general restructuring to prepare the Army for the reconquest of the North, these officers have been removed. The economic and arms blockade of the Transitional Government by OECD countries and ECOWAS are responsible for mass unemployment in the South and for allowing the Salafists to become entrenched in the North, delaying the time when the three major cities are retaken and making it more difficult to establish control over the vast hinterland of the Sahara.

Thanks. The idea that one can "swat the jihadists" and win is a myth. It merely turns democratic states into dictatorships, and from there down the hill to corruption. The single most important strategic thing to do when confronted with jihadists is to ask why are they so successful in recruiting and in wining mass support? That is where the majority of our resources should be applied ... undermine the reasons for having a jihad in the first place. The second thing we should accept is that having a sharia state is none of our business. Being a sharia state does not necessarily threaten us. What threatens us is a sharia state that is our enemy. Period. We must remember a little history. The first parliament was a Cromwellian Puritan government that crushed all other religions. Countries have to go through the process of dealing with their historically defined conditions, and they have to do this themselves (we can merely help, and not necessarily by pumping money in, which only invites corruption). Sharia law and capitalism will not work. So let people try and make it work, and failure will bring its own reform, and hopefully a country can get its act together in the way its citizens find interesting.

the Jihadist gain support by bringing in outside money and outside fighters which upsets the local balance to favor one. They make initial alliances with the locals as the junior partner, but eventually buy off and murder/terrorize opponents allowing them to then take control of the traditional illegal money making operations. They use the expanded access to money to expand into the normal economy and continual buying off of various local factions while eliminating those who oppose them. Ultimately it forces the area into submission. (over simplifying, but you get the idea)

What started out as one group/faction's attempt to gain control over the area with outside support results in their own destruction.

the problem is that the recent Western approach (they rarely did this during their colonial days) starts off trying to impose a foreign control from the start which makes all local forces oppose them unified. The West just needs to co-opt the reasonable groups with money and at times troop reinforcements, but make known they have no intention of ultimately controlling the territory as long as it doesn't interfere in their interests. the locals will go with this over the Jihadhist foreign takeover.

the issue is the the West currently pursues a crusade of Western Human Right Democracy Liberal Ideology, which undermines traditional and local power structures.

The neo-con response to the success of the jihad faction has been shown to be stupid. the problem for the "west" is that the "opposition" is not always easy to identify. In the case of Iraq, Bush put a Shia power into office! Allied to Iran! In Syria the opposition is again in doubt. So the situation is fluid. The information available to the "West" is questionable. It is very difficult to decide what to do.

Historically it is nearly inpossible for a poor population to defend itself from outsider-financed military gangs with political ambitions. If you know of some, please provide.

Your reference to Cromwell is backwards: the Puritans were very much like today's jihadists in that both believed that some deity was telling them what to do, and that they have an obligation to do so. Both were self-deluded, violent, foolish, and hurt a lot of very innocent people while claiming to be holy. The English eventually went a better way, and I hope the rest of us get the same chance!

The Puritans were not 'very much like' jihadists. They did not reign in terror over their own population (they were as popular as any other govt at the time). They followed the rules of war at the time. They did some very silly things but nothing outside of conventions of the time.

The problem with that is that a Shariah state would become a breeding ground of terrorists. Reform like the one you're talking about would take a long time to occur, which would be time enough for a huge number of "brothers" to be created and groomed to give their all to "the cause". Why? Well, you must remember that these Islamic terror groups are successful in part because they have a solid backbone of die-hard ideologues (Certainly the bulk of their infantry may be poverty-stricken disaffected youths who have been indoctrinated by the "elders" but there does exist the backbone of ideologues who will be Islamists regardless of financial status). The moment they see one Shariah state, they'll want one in, say Ethiopia (where 34% of the population is Muslim, some of whom are dissatisfied with the govt's handling of their religious matters). And this will go on and on. In general shariah states have not been successful in restraining such people; thus you see a single shariah state would start a chain reaction which does not bode well for Africa.

You have half a point. Some "local" traditions would include mothers hot-ironing their daughters' breasts in Cameroon to make them sag and thereby unattractive to men as a deterrent to rapists. I'm sure the mothers mean well, but no sane person could even think of allowing this as part of tradition.
Also, I would disagree with you on your main argument. Most Africans, wrought in poverty as a consequence of corrupt and inept leadership, have been treated to generous amounts of West-bashing as the reason of their hardships. They would look upon every single "white" who lands among them with suspicion, while the Jihadists are their own "brothers", black like the rest of them and everything. Also, you do realize that vast swathes of Africa need loads of modernization for eradication of the evils. For that, quite a few of the "traditional power structures" need to be dismantled. I'm sure you can agree that no country, West or East, can go on pouring money into African states hoping that one day they'll realize the crimes of the Jihadists and rise like the Phoenix?
Of course, I may be wrong, or living half a century in the past, but to the best of my knowledge your opinion can be successfully challenged by my arguments.